Pasek boczny artykułu
Przesłane
stycznia 13, 2020
Opublikowane
grudnia 31, 2019
Pobieranie
Statystyczny
Read Counter :
26
Pobieranie : 20
Treść głównego artykułu
Abstrakt
Cooperation between the world of science (universities, scientists) and the socio-economic environment of the universities has been a subject of many developments and analyses for some time now. As for now, there has been no universal set of tools aimed at measuring effectiveness of science-business relationships (S-B). This paper presents selected expertise results conducted on the behalf of the Foundation for the Development of the Education System (FRSE). It allowed to assess the usefulness of the most popular measures of the science-business relationship. We have identified indicators, which were evaluated in a qualitative study based on a sample of 30 representatives of two universities.
Szczegóły artykułu
Licencja
Autor (Autorzy) artykułu oświadcza, że przesłane opracowanie nie narusza praw autorskich osób trzecich. Wyraża zgodę na poddanie artykułu procedurze recenzji oraz dokonanie zmian redakcyjnych. Przenosi nieodpłatnie na Oficynę Wydawniczą SGH autorskie prawa majątkowe do utworu na polach eksploatacji wymienionych w art. 50 Ustawy z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych – pod warunkiem, że praca została zaakceptowana do publikacji i opublikowana.
Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH posiada autorskie prawa majątkowe do wszystkich treści czasopisma. Zamieszczenie tekstu artykuły w repozytorium, na stronie domowej autora lub na innej stronie jest dozwolone o ile nie wiąże się z pozyskiwaniem korzyści majątkowych, a tekst wyposażony będzie w informacje źródłowe (w tym również tytuł, rok, numer i adres internetowy czasopisma).
Osoby zainteresowane komercyjnym wykorzystaniem zawartości czasopisma proszone są o kontakt z Redakcją.
Jak cytować
Fazlagić, J. . (2019). Measurement methodology of science-business relations in the reality of Polish higher education. Edukacja Ekonomistów I Menedżerów, 54(4), 63–79. Pobrano z https://econjournals.sgh.waw.pl/EEiM/article/view/1838
Referencje
-
1. Act of 20 July 2018. Law on Higher Education and Science, (Journal of Laws 2018,Item 1668).
2. Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galan Muros, V., Meerman, A. (2011). The state of EuropeanUniversity‐Business Cooperation. Part of the DG education and culture study on thecooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisationsin Europe, European Commission, DG Education and Culture, Brussels.
3. Dyer, J. H., Kale, P., Singh, H. (2004). When to ally and when to acquire. Harvard BusinessReview, 82.
4. EC (2009). Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organisations in Europe.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
5. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42 (3).
6. Fazlagić, A. (2002). Balanced scorecard – skazani na monopol? Controlling i RachunkowośćZarządcza, 3.
7. Fazlagić, A. (2003a). Measuring performance of social science research organisationswithin the context of the RECORD methodology. In: Towards the practice of benchmarkingRTD organisations in the Accession States. Ljubljana: Budapest University ofTechnology and Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences.
8. Fazlagić, A. (2003b). Kapitał ludzki w BSC, Controlling i Rachunkowość Zarządcza, 2.
9. Fazlagić, J. (2013). Aktywa intelektualne niepublicznych szkół wyższych, Warsaw: WydawnictwoAFiBV.
10. Fazlagić, J., et al. (Ed.) (2014). A strategic approach for intellectual capital managementin European Universities. Guidelines for implementation. Bucharest: UEFISCDI.
11. Friedman, J., Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management,and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (1).
12. Gardner, P. L., Fong, A. Y., Huang, R. L. (2010). Measuring the impact of knowledgetransfer from public research organisations: A comparison of metrics used aroundthe world. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 7(3–4).
13. Holi, M. T., Wickramasinghe, R., van Leeuwen, M. (2008). Metrics for the evaluation ofknowledge transfer activities at universities. Cambridge: Library House.Jasiński, A. (2018). W innowacjach po staremu, Polityka, 4 (3145).
14. Kwiek, M. (2014). Przyszłość uniwersytetów w Europie: motywy dyskusji i ich polskiekonteksty, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1–2 (43–44).
15. Kyung, L. H., Duk, Y. H., Jeoung, K. S., Kyo, S. Y. (2016). Factors affecting university– industry cooperation performance: Study of the mediating effects of governmentand enterprise support. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7 (2).
16. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. London: Printer Publishers.
17. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20 (1).
18. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third streamactivities – SPRU. Falmer: University of Sussex.
19. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
20. Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Rammer, Ch., Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarkingindustry – science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and PublicPolicy, 28 (4), 1 August.
21. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, stateand higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Referencje
1. Act of 20 July 2018. Law on Higher Education and Science, (Journal of Laws 2018,Item 1668).
2. Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galan Muros, V., Meerman, A. (2011). The state of EuropeanUniversity‐Business Cooperation. Part of the DG education and culture study on thecooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisationsin Europe, European Commission, DG Education and Culture, Brussels.
3. Dyer, J. H., Kale, P., Singh, H. (2004). When to ally and when to acquire. Harvard BusinessReview, 82.
4. EC (2009). Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organisations in Europe.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
5. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42 (3).
6. Fazlagić, A. (2002). Balanced scorecard – skazani na monopol? Controlling i RachunkowośćZarządcza, 3.
7. Fazlagić, A. (2003a). Measuring performance of social science research organisationswithin the context of the RECORD methodology. In: Towards the practice of benchmarkingRTD organisations in the Accession States. Ljubljana: Budapest University ofTechnology and Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences.
8. Fazlagić, A. (2003b). Kapitał ludzki w BSC, Controlling i Rachunkowość Zarządcza, 2.
9. Fazlagić, J. (2013). Aktywa intelektualne niepublicznych szkół wyższych, Warsaw: WydawnictwoAFiBV.
10. Fazlagić, J., et al. (Ed.) (2014). A strategic approach for intellectual capital managementin European Universities. Guidelines for implementation. Bucharest: UEFISCDI.
11. Friedman, J., Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management,and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (1).
12. Gardner, P. L., Fong, A. Y., Huang, R. L. (2010). Measuring the impact of knowledgetransfer from public research organisations: A comparison of metrics used aroundthe world. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 7(3–4).
13. Holi, M. T., Wickramasinghe, R., van Leeuwen, M. (2008). Metrics for the evaluation ofknowledge transfer activities at universities. Cambridge: Library House.Jasiński, A. (2018). W innowacjach po staremu, Polityka, 4 (3145).
14. Kwiek, M. (2014). Przyszłość uniwersytetów w Europie: motywy dyskusji i ich polskiekonteksty, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1–2 (43–44).
15. Kyung, L. H., Duk, Y. H., Jeoung, K. S., Kyo, S. Y. (2016). Factors affecting university– industry cooperation performance: Study of the mediating effects of governmentand enterprise support. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7 (2).
16. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. London: Printer Publishers.
17. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20 (1).
18. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third streamactivities – SPRU. Falmer: University of Sussex.
19. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
20. Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Rammer, Ch., Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarkingindustry – science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and PublicPolicy, 28 (4), 1 August.
21. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, stateand higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
2. Davey, T., Baaken, T., Galan Muros, V., Meerman, A. (2011). The state of EuropeanUniversity‐Business Cooperation. Part of the DG education and culture study on thecooperation between higher education institutions and public and private organisationsin Europe, European Commission, DG Education and Culture, Brussels.
3. Dyer, J. H., Kale, P., Singh, H. (2004). When to ally and when to acquire. Harvard BusinessReview, 82.
4. EC (2009). Metrics for knowledge transfer from public research organisations in Europe.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
5. Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42 (3).
6. Fazlagić, A. (2002). Balanced scorecard – skazani na monopol? Controlling i RachunkowośćZarządcza, 3.
7. Fazlagić, A. (2003a). Measuring performance of social science research organisationswithin the context of the RECORD methodology. In: Towards the practice of benchmarkingRTD organisations in the Accession States. Ljubljana: Budapest University ofTechnology and Economics, Faculty of Economic and Social Sciences.
8. Fazlagić, A. (2003b). Kapitał ludzki w BSC, Controlling i Rachunkowość Zarządcza, 2.
9. Fazlagić, J. (2013). Aktywa intelektualne niepublicznych szkół wyższych, Warsaw: WydawnictwoAFiBV.
10. Fazlagić, J., et al. (Ed.) (2014). A strategic approach for intellectual capital managementin European Universities. Guidelines for implementation. Bucharest: UEFISCDI.
11. Friedman, J., Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management,and location matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28 (1).
12. Gardner, P. L., Fong, A. Y., Huang, R. L. (2010). Measuring the impact of knowledgetransfer from public research organisations: A comparison of metrics used aroundthe world. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 7(3–4).
13. Holi, M. T., Wickramasinghe, R., van Leeuwen, M. (2008). Metrics for the evaluation ofknowledge transfer activities at universities. Cambridge: Library House.Jasiński, A. (2018). W innowacjach po staremu, Polityka, 4 (3145).
14. Kwiek, M. (2014). Przyszłość uniwersytetów w Europie: motywy dyskusji i ich polskiekonteksty, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1–2 (43–44).
15. Kyung, L. H., Duk, Y. H., Jeoung, K. S., Kyo, S. Y. (2016). Factors affecting university– industry cooperation performance: Study of the mediating effects of governmentand enterprise support. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7 (2).
16. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation andinteractive learning. London: Printer Publishers.
17. Mansfield, E. (1991). Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 20 (1).
18. Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third streamactivities – SPRU. Falmer: University of Sussex.
19. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
20. Polt, W., Gassler, H., Schibany, A., Rammer, Ch., Schartinger, D. (2001). Benchmarkingindustry – science relations: The role of framework conditions. Science and PublicPolicy, 28 (4), 1 August.
21. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, stateand higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.